Multiple Tastes

There are two seasons in France that make us sit up straight and pay attention - autumn and spring, specifically October and March when the Foires aux Vins occur. The autumn Foire is better but March is not bad, maybe because at this time the vineyards are willing to sell stock at a discount to get recoup some storage space (remember that many Burgundian whites are bottled in the spring after their harvest.

As a result, we are out tasting, degusting and buying where we can. That means that the apartment is filled with boxes and there are many to test at each dinner. Friday evening upon my arrival in Paris was no exception. It was decided we would go to Restaurant La Cordonnerie, where we are 'related' to the young and dynamic chef, Hugo. We have also depended upon him for the initial portion of our early wine education, and now we collaborate on wine purchases (his deep connections and restaurant buying power gives us great 'tag-along' prices).

This evening we had several wines to appraise: a white 2003 Mercurey, Domaine Faively; another white, a 2007 Saint-Aubin, Domaine ________ (I cannot remember this, shockingly, but promise to get back to you with the name); en carafe, a red 1990 Chassagne-Montrachet, domain unknown, that should not have been carafed and was dead as a result so we won't review; a 1997 Charmes-Chambertin Grand Cru, Henri Rebourseau; a 1982 Charmes-Chambertin Grand Cru, Henri Rebourseau; and a 1982 Pauillac, Château Colombier-Monpelou.

Sounds like a lot of good wine, but we were four! Ah, the sacrifices made for the sake of blog. By the way, the last three wines were not labeled red or white because these wines are always red. That said, to work. We opened the Mercurey first; it was only lightly chilled (we a big fans of unchilled whites - don't drink them too young and don't drink them too cold!!) and of course 2003 was that special year, summer of the canicule, the massive heat wave, and French wines are different for this. This one was no exception; its color was pale yellow, the nose carried the muskiness of Burgundy overlaid with light white flowers. Mercurey is a particular wine, white or red, carrying a taste that is particular to the appellation. Like Meursault, it can be misunderstood by the uninitiated.

This one did not disappoint; with the first sip there was that distinctive Mercurey flavor carrying an almost musky grassiness - very pleasant and extremely drinkable. For our money, without the canicule, we would think this wine too young but the hot growing season of 2003 produced grapes that gave wine that ages more rapidly. Remember this when buying wines from France. Interestingly, this bottle sat on the table most of the evening and several returned to it for tastes. It held its own with most foods, even cheese, and with time the bouquet became stronger; at the same time, it was definitely agreed that this was a bottle that one opened with friends for a glass of wine alone or with food. Very drinkable. You, Attentive Reader, will find this on your next list and at a very good price. Don't miss it.

Next up, the Saint-Aubin. St.-Aubin is a small village pinched between Puligny and Chassagne; therefore, much overshadowed by its more well-known neighbors. Sadly it is little seen Stateside, but is worth finding if possible. The whites carry more importance than the reds as in Meursault, but both are very drinkable. St.-Aubin is not considered to be a great wine and therefore is rarely aged too long, but we have tried some that when well-cellared are lovely. At this age, a 2007, the wine was full of life and a total expression of terroir, or the soil in which the grapes were grown. For _____________ that means much mineral. In the nose one could even smell wet stone. In the mouth, it was sharp and the minerals supported, only at the end, very fresh fruit. Hugo was pleased with the wine and reminded us that we had degusted at this producer in St.-Aubin, but the wine was freshly bottled and very closed; we remembered it being very early in the morning after a grand dinner the night before and when we wanted coffee more than wine, but....

Hugo appreciates wines for their mineral (whites) and fresh fruit (reds); we prefer more subtlety. This wine was heavily into Hugo's camp and paired well with a starter of verrine d'oeufs brouilles aux lardons avec mousse de cocos, or, loosely translated, eggs lightly scrambled with bits of ham served in a small glass under a mousse prepared from large white flat beans (cocos). It sounds so much more sophisticated in French! Anyway, with this course, the St.-Aubin was excellent, its minerality cutting into the fattiness of the eggs and ham. As the night wore on, the nose developed with more green herbs mixed with the mineral but en bouche, it remained very sharp.

As we mentioned, the Chassagne should not have been left so long in the carafe; Burgundies can be fragile and, if carafed, should be left minutes not hours. In its place, the '97 Charmes. Always a Grand Cru, and this one made by one of our faves - Rebourseau. He's an odd genius, working around the phases of the moon, spouting quotable bits, and following in his father's and grandfather's footsteps. This Charmes was beautiful in the glass - a deep cherry red, with an intense nose that broadcast first the slight mustiness of good red Burgundies followed by red fruits overlaid with slight violets. In the mouth, it was lovely - the grape was still apparent followed by the red fruits of the nose and with a strong support of tannins.

Perhaps too much tannin for me; while it was a good wine, it has the possibility to be great. Buying from certain spreadsheets (hint, hint) one will pay $100-125 per bottle; in reputable stores expect prices over $200. At those prices, we want perfection in the glass. The French say that by counting the seconds the taste lingers in the mouth after swallowing tells one how long the wine will last. With this bottle, I'd say 4-5 years more for its apogée, or prime. In a Charmes, we'd recommend looking for a '90 (great year), '91 or '93 (reasonable year), or a '92 (not considered a great year, but with a know producer, can be worthwhile).

Ignoring our own advice above, we then opened the 1982 Charmes-Chambertin, also from Rebourseau. In this area of the Côte de Nuits, there are several Grand Crus - Bonnes Mares, Clos de la Roche, Clos Saint-Denis, Clos de Vougeot, Mazis-Chambertin, Chambertin, and Charmes-Chambertin - and Charmes is said to mature the most rapidly and should be drunk first. Sadly, as predicted, this one was past. That is not to say it was vinegar or without taste, but instead it had turned, maderized, as the French would say. Unlike in white wines where maderization turns them sugary, here the color breaks down to ruddy brown with almost clear edges where the wine meets the glass. The nose is sweet but in the mouth there is an effect like a watered-down port. We did not finish this one!

Last up was the Bordeaux, the Pauillac. With this year we had great hopes. Remember that France may be small but a bad year in Burgundy does not necessarily dictate the same in Bordeaux and '82 is considered one of the great millesimes in Bordeaux. With the first bottle, the cork had a strange odor. The color was very good - a deep purple - in the glass, but the nose was off. Again, not vinegar but not Bordeaux. On participant described it as iodine, like a big plateau fruit de mer. I could not find that in the mouth but it did not have the richness of fruits and tannins traditionally found in Bordeaux.

We pulled a second cork, and it smelled better. Into the glass, again the beautiful color, but again the odd nose. This time I could smell the iodine, like being on the beach in the early spring with the wind off the ocean. And I noticed tiny crystals on the surface of the cork that meets the wine. Now, we're not a chemist even if our father is, but it seems logical that these crystals would be most likely to form on a moist cork that is not submerged but rather that is in contact with the air. Perhaps at some point the wine was stored upright allowing the cork to dry. Although we believe a purchaser of wine has the responsibility to return 'off' wine to the seller and the seller should replace the wine free of charge, we do not believe this seller has the same philosophy. Time will tell, stay connected!

And here is a bit of information on this Bordeaux in particular and Bordeaux classifications in general. Because the Pauillac was from a significant year, we had decided to purchase from a reseller seven bottles of this 1982, Château Colombier-Monpelou. The château owner, Bernard Jugla, only makes annually about 100,000 bottles of a blend of Carbernet Sauvignon, Merlot, Petit Verdot, and Carbernet Franc. The wine, produced with traditional methods, has an excellent reputation and was classified a Cru Bourgeois Supérieur in 2003. Bordeaux has, primarily for Médoc (remembering that Médoc includes Pauillac, Margaux, Haut-Médoc, St.-Estèphe, and St.-Julien), five levels of Grand Cru Classée: Premier (5), Deuxième (14), Troisième (14), Quatrième (10), and Cinquième (18), also called "Growths, First Growth, Second Growth, etc., and primarily established in 1855.

Also included in this classification in 1855 was one Graves, Château Haut-Brion, and at the same Sauternes and Barsacs (sweet white wines from the region) were granted classification as Premier Cru Supérieur (only Château d'Yquem), Premiers Crus (11) and Deuxièmes Crus (15). Following this classification in 1855, some regions created their own classification, but Pomerol determined their wines were prestigious enough not to need further classifying.

In Saint-Emilion, wines were given Grand Cru labels which were to be reclassified each ten years but following the first classification in 1954, it was done erratically, and the 2006 classification has been ruled invalid in 2008 by the courts of Bordeaux because of challenges by châteaux demoted during this classification. Loss of a Cru Classé label can mean loss of income and sales despite having made expenditures required of the now lost classification. Nevertheless, there are three primary classifications in St-Emilion: Premier Grands Crus Classés A (2), Premiers Grands Crus Classés B (13), and Grands Crus Classés (depends upon the year of the classement).

Drink up!

Park Avenue II

Sadly, dear Readers, we are a bit late with our final few notes on the remaining wines from Park Avenue Liquors and officially that sale may be over. However, in these times, we will wager a good bottle that if you went in and bought a couple of bottles (that means six or more), they'd honor the sale. Times ain't what they used to be...

There remain two red Burgundies to discuss: Santenay 1er Cru Grand Clos Rousseau, Domaine Mommessin 2002, $32 and Savigny-les-Beaune 1er Cru Les Narbatons, Louis Jadot 2002, $30. We wish we had raves, but we don't! But we will offer a disclaimer, a ray of light on the review - it is very possible that we were drinking these two wines too young; ugh, wine pedophilia.... Not really, we have been saying that 2002 is the new 2000 (you can quote us on that!!) because as we tasted and degusted we have found some 2002 that upon first 'sniff' a year or two ago did not excite us that now are making us smile with that first sip.

Both of these wines are from the Côtes de Beaune, and Santenay is located southwest of Beaune and Chassagne-Montrachet. Interestingly enough, the parcelle Grand Clos Rousseau lies on the border between the Côte-d'Or and Saône-et-Loire, making it really easing into Mâcon, where temperatures are warmer. Santenay generally falls into the general wine category, "Beaune-type" of which we are so fond; their elegance and finesse often allows this wine to be overlooked. Typically, Santenay is very aromatic with hints of red fruits and also flowers - roses, violets, peonies. In the mouth, the tannins are firm but not too sharp but balance an intense burst of flavor.

With this Santenay from Mommessin, we did not find fault but we did miss the burst of flavor in the mouth and the bouquet was not as full as hoped. The tannins were still apparent and the color was excellent - a deep purple - and for those reasons we believe this wine will mature in the coming years. We believe another year and it will be prime. Buy it and guard it or come back in a year and hope PA Liquors still has it.

On to the Savigny from Jadot. We've all seen their wines everywhere for years but without defending over-production (it's actually illegal in Burgundy, production levels are controlled by volume per hectare of vineyard each year, meaning that some Premier Cru juice ends up in Village appellation wines on some years which can only increase the quality of those wines), if you are buying Jadot wines of a certain level, say Premier Cru or small Village appellations, then you are probably not going to be disappointed. At the same time, you are probably also getting a very middle-of-the-road wine that, on very good years, is missing some of the extraordinary heights other producers' wines will exhibit.

That said, 2002 was not a blockbuster year and this wine was very drinkable. The color was good - a dark cherry red - and the nose carried a decent bouquet of fruit. Now the village of Savigny lies slightly north of the city of Beaune and south-west of Mount Corton which gives most of the parcelles a southern exposure without much elevation. Typically that can mean a flabby wine but here the rocky soil give the wine a fine, thin body. While the southern exposition probably limits the expression of tannins, they are present until maturity but throughout the life the fruit is apparent and up front. In this Jadot, we may be missing a bit of the full fruit and some of the elegance but for $30 we were not unhappy. Buy it to drink now or over the next year.

Lots to tell in the coming days. Until then...

Park Avenue I

We did promise to give our thoughts and notes on the six bottles we picked up at Park Avenue Liquors recently. Remember, drop by and participate in that juicy sale!

When we went through, we found four interesting Burgundies, one Bordeaux and one New York State. The latter we requested because we are feeling that Californians are over-rated, and a friend introduced us recently to a very nice Chardonnay from Long Island. Park Avenue, as the name suggests is a bit old school, so all they had for us was a white from the Finger Lakes (northern New York State, for you International Readers), Herman J. Wiemer, Chardonnay Reserve 2003, $28.

Now those 'standing salesmen' at Park Avenue said that Wiemer was best known for their Riesling wines, that this was not a sweet, over-oaked California-style Chardonnay, and that it was 100% fermented in steel tanks. In the glass the wine was a pale golden yellow. The nose was fresh with warm fruit and light white flowers but missing the mustiness or the steeliness we associate with a Chardonnay from Burgundy. In the mouth, the full fruit continued but without the mineral structure of a good Chablis and without the warmth and toasted nuts of Chardonnay from further south in Burgundy. Our assessment: drinkable, but not regularly for that price.

Next up, and still not from notre région préférée, Château Les Grands Chênes, Medoc, Cru Bourgeois 1996, $23. 1996 was quite a decent year for red Bordeaux but a Cru Bourgeois could well be over the hill. However, this bottle was a pleasant surprise. In the glass, it was a deep ruby red without any fading to rust or brown on the edge. Immediately out of the bottle, the nose was warm and extremely aromatic, a bouquet heavy with red fruits. In the mouth there was plenty of life although the tannins were completely dispersed. As a result, we don't think there would be much change from time in a carafe. There was fruit and a slight woodiness but missing was the lingering flavor or the layering of flavors we look for in an older wine.

While it is true that we prefer elegant, even thin, wines, we are still looking for a dominant note or an explosion of flavors in the mouth. Medoc of this level seems always to disappoint us – thin without elegance, limpid without depth. However, for the price at that age, this is not a bad bottle. It is rare to find in New York a $23 bottle of 1996 that is this drinkable.

On to our région, Viré Clessé, Domaine des Chazelles 2004, $18. A beautiful white wine from the southern extremities of Burgundy, Mâcon. Here temperatures are slightly warmer, the soil contains less stone and mineral and the hillsides have more southern exposure than other parts of Burgundy. As a result, wines from here tend to be fuller, sweeter, and fruitier, capturing, if you will, some of that temperate weather in the bottle. 2004 was not a great year in Burgundy; we know French who will not drink reds from this year, describing them as missing the musky earthiness but replacing it with what can best be translated as ‘leaf mold’.

In Mâcon, and with white wines from this year, there is less with which to be concerned. This wine was a lovely light golden yellow in the glass, but the nose was only mildly apparent even though it was only lightly chilled. A bad sign we thought, even though some say that at a certain point after bottling Burgundies “go to sleep” and loose their nose and their flavor until a certain point when they become ready to drink. We discount this phenomenon in a Viré Clessé for it is too simple a wine, made to be drunk with less aging and without the expectations of greater Burgundian whites. We were hoping for a whiff of white spring flowers, perhaps a slight peach scent or an almost mentholated nose of citronella or spruce.

Unfortunately, in the mouth, our Viré was equally flat. There was fruit, and a certain roundness with a slight expression of warmth however with little expression of the terroir. With such a reasonable price, however, we’d give this bottle a 6 on a scale of 10.

Continuing with Burgundy whites and headed north from Mâcon, our next bottle was a Meursault Domaine Latour-Giraud, Cuvée Charles Maxime 1998, $25. Recently we had stumbled across a reasonably priced stash of Meursault 1998 and 99’s which were delightful. Sadly, they are all gone and we’ve been hunting for more ever since. Meursault can be a difficult wine, misunderstood for its particular nose and flavor. Often with older bottles, the uninitiated upon uncorking will think the wine is ‘corked’ and reject it. As we are partial to older Burgundies, we’ve learned to appreciate this wine.

This domain is an old family property begun in the 17th century. Latour is a common Burgundian name that appears in several permutations today; Latour-Giraud is unrelated to Louis Latour and is located in Meursault with an ongoing production primarily of white wines in the Côte de Beaune. A ‘sturdy’ wine with good structure, Meursault, even as a Village appellation, can be imagined to remain beautifully drinkable for 10-12 years. However, as we pulled the cork it became apparent this was not the case with this bottle.

The first odor, even off the cork was an overly sweet smell, slightly unpleasant but not sharp and vinegary. In the glass, the color was a deep antique gold and the nose remained overly sweet, almost sickeningly so. Without tasting it was obvious this bottle had turned, maderized as the French would say, as in Madeira or sherry, a ‘cooked’ wine from the days when wine was transported in casks in the holds of ships and would sometimes in summer arrive in England having been overheated in travel or ‘cooked’ in the barrel creating a sweet sugary wine we now call Madeira. The wine was drinkable and our tasting partner was loathe to “waste” it, but we put it aside to return to Park Avenue.

And with that, we’d like to close this posting with a small lesson. When wine is bad, off, corked, past its prime, always let the seller know. Whether it is a wine shop, a restaurant or a Excel spreadsheet sent from France (!!), the seller did not wish for you to have a bad experience, but wine is not a constant, it is a living thing, as a favorite winemaker of our often says, and some bottles will not ‘perform’ as expected. A reputable seller will always replace the bottle and you are obligated to alert them to the problem.

Until next time, bottoms up!

Test

That's exactly what this post is, a test. A test of mobility, of blogging at distance, from the BBerry no less!

But testing is what we do for you, Readers, test, degust, tipple and try wine of all sorts so tests should not be daunting. Lately, we followed a hunch to visit our favorite wine shoppe, Park Avenue Liquors (on Madison Ave. naturally) and we thanked our lucky stars ('lucky stars' - 'hunch' - get it?) because if you pay with debit card or cash and get 50% off each second bottle of same or lower price. Got to love it, and we love Park Avenue.

The store is the size of a typical Manhattan studio apartment, stacked to the ceilings with bottles, and with more knowledgeable salesmen than could fit around the dining table in that aforementioned studio.

There are two other details that make them worthy of our affection - an unseen temperature-controlled cellar stocked with wines and a philosophy of not continuing to mark-up their stock as the years go by. All that means is that, unlike many establishments, there are good bottles, ready to drink, that have been kept in proper conditions. Now there are no guarantees in life nor in wine and good bottles can good bad without obvious reason, but those standing salesmen will exchange it without fuss; more on that latter.

For now, let's tantalize: we found 6 bottles worth trying; and test: we are going to post this and follow later with another missive discussing those wines.

'Till then!

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld